For schools implementing Response-to-Intervention, it is important to understand how to efficiently intensify interventions. Treatment intensity, or intervention design, is a critical yet overlooked and understudied aspect in math. More frequent dosage results in greater student gains. However, questions remain regarding how teaching episodes impacts student outcomes. Limited reporting of these variables leads to questions regarding recommendations for intervention dosage or number of teaching episodes. This exploratory study used an adapted alternating treatment design to document the number of teaching episodes, calculate cumulative intensity, and evaluate the learning rate of a Cover-Copy-Compare intervention across three dosages. Results indicate that learning rates were the greatest during the smallest treatment dosage for most students. Implications for research and practice are discussed.