While it's technically ambiguous, most native speakers would immediately understand that Steve was not the person cheering. Firstly, Steve cheering makes no sense. Secondly, it's a very common construction for newspaper/article headlines.

For example, BBC News right now says "Jury discharged in Ian Watkins pirson murder trial", "Carrick confirmed as Man Utd permanent boss", "Ex-soldier jailed after woman..."

Okay, in this example it's more ambiguous because "cheered" does not have to take an object. But native speakers are primed to expect a passive sentence here.

▲ orphea 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

  While it's technically ambiguous

Is it? To read it as intended, shouldn't it be "Wozniak is cheered"?

	▲	rjh29 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I mean technically in the sense that you -can- interpret it two different ways, even if most people wouldn't. The 'is' is not required because it's using newspaper headline grammar.

▲ randallsquared 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm a native speaker, and read it the "Wozniak gave a little cheer after" way at first, though the more likely meaning did occur to me immediately after. As for it making no sense, I differ. There are scenarios I can conjure in which that exact sequence could happen, either because he was cheering the students after telling them they're great, or because he forgot what he was doing -- dementia wouldn't even be "early onset" at his age. Further, if something is utterly mundane and expected, there are no headlines about it, as in the old saying about the difference between "Dog bites man" and "Man bites dog".